[slightly related to ISSUE-117]
Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote on Tuesday, March 25, 2008:
>2/ I do not believe that a comprehension principle is needed for
> owl11:disjointUnionOf (so long as there is a comprehension principle
> for lists of descriptions) and the syntax requires
> that the disjointUnion be a named class.
After reconsidering this special case, I have now dropped the comprehension
principle for owl2:disjointUnionOf. It is technically redundant, as long as
we have:
* a comprehension principle for owl:unionOf
* ONLY-IF semantics for owl:unionOf
* IF-AND-ONLY-IF semantics for owl2:disjointUnionOf
Cheers,
Michael